Public Deeply Ignorant About Cap and Trade
Via Dave Weigel, an unusually useful poll from Rasmussen Reports:
Given a choice of three options, just 24 percent of voters can correctly identify the cap-and-trade proposal as something that deals with environmental issues. A slightly higher number (29 percent) believe the proposal has something to do with regulating Wall Street while 17 percent think the term applies to health care reform. A plurality (30 percent) have no idea.
The political press has a very strong structural bias toward overestimating the extent to which the public has real opinions about hot political issues. I wish more pollsters would put these kinds of polls in the field that do something to probe the extent of public ignorance. Polls that attempt to directly probe the public’s views about cap and trade wind up measuring a lot of pseudo-opinion. As you can see right in this result, people are incredibly unwilling to admit that they “don’t know” something or other. Thus 46 percent of the public says they know what cap and trade is about even though they don’t, in fact, know what it’s about.
108 Responses to “Public Deeply Ignorant About Cap and Trade”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 11th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Another lovely thing; people can feel it in their bones that the globe is cooling rather than warming. It’s all very coy to sneer at hoi polloi, but they are the ones going to suffer with cap and trade. Al Gore will do just fine.
=============================================
May 11th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I’d be interested to see similar polls of public ignorance in other countries. The stereotypical smug European is eager to comment on how stupid Americans are–I wonder where the truth actually lies.
May 11th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Deep in your link to Rasmussen, Matt, are the results that show only 33% of Americans now believe that humans are the cause of climate change, as opposed to 47% a year ago. And this is a topic understood by a higher percentage than understand the political jargon ‘Cap and Trade’.
The Times, they are a changin’. Climate, too, and the sun. We are cooling folks; for how long, even kim doesn’t know.
==========================================
May 11th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
From the results, it looks like people were probably presented with 3 choices and “don’t know”, otherwise, you’d get more than three different results. Some percentage of the correct answers were probably lucky guesses.
May 11th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Are you seriously contending that people understand climate science better than they understand political jargon?
Have you ever met any people?
May 11th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Jason, in 2. Well, Europeans may not know well the specific term ‘Cap and Trade’, but they are well aware of the downside to carbon encumbering. The carbon credit market has crashed twice in recent years, leading to uncertainty and hampering economic planning. The Germans and the Danes are finding that wind power isn’t much help, and the British are getting extremely hot about green taxes. A recent study shows the British cutting their household food purchases in order to pay energy bills. New Zealand recently elected a government with much less zeal than the previous one for carbon capping, and Australia’s Rudd recently put on hold for a couple of years that nation’s carbon capping scheme.
The times they are a cha…..Oh, I already said that.
=====================================
May 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
people can feel it in their bones that the globe is cooling rather than warming.
Well, I know when I want to figure out if there are changes in average global temperature on the scale of one degree or less over a period of many years, I take a poll of what people feel in their bones. Why, I can’t think of a method more likely to be right! These intellectuals with their data and studies, that’s hogwash compared with good old-fashioned intuition.
(kim thought to himself as he wondered why Republicans do so poorly among well-educated voters…)
May 11th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Njorl at 5. Heh, pretty funny. Actually, yes, I do claim that. The public is pretty aware that there is a huge controversy over man’s effect on the climate and many are increasingly skeptical about climate and are beginning to believe that Gore-like claims are a bunch of hooey. In this particular case, that the globe is now cooling rather than cooking has penetrated public consciousness. Dismay and disregard about Washington have suppressed our polity’s natural curiosity about relatively arcane terms like Cap and Trade. I’d like to see the response if the same cohort had been asked about Cap and Tax. Heh. Double heh, heh.
==========================================
May 11th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Adam, 7, sneers at the gut instincts of hoi polloi. And once upon a time Democrats thought they were populists.
=========================================
May 11th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Another thing many of you may be missing is that many of those calling it for ‘Wall Street Regulation’ realize that the credits are going to be an exchange traded instrument. In fact, some of them may have answered it that way because they know it won’t help the environment, but instead will help the traders. Think, people, think.
=============================================
May 11th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
The general public is stupid about Cap and Trade, but so are people like Andrew Sullivan, David Frum, and Bill Mahar, who are held up as being well informed. They are not; they are dumbasses with respect to C&T (and a shitload if irrelevant stuff too).
May 11th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
“Bones” are the new “gut,” and kim is the same old lying shill.
May 11th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Adam, you might be fascinated by the correlation between climate concern and temperature. Both peaked in 1998 and 2005. Never sneer at the feelings in people’s bones. You don’t know whereof ye speak.
=================================================
May 11th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
It’s, like, all cool today, and people – real people, not like Democrats – like totally know that.
Wake up people!
May 11th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Ed, 11. Heh,heh. James Hansen doesn’t like Cap and Trade, either.
joe, 12. joe can’t find a lie or a shill anywhere about me. Abuse is not persuasive, pal.
======================================
May 11th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Climate, schlimate. This is just the biggest regressive tax ever. Right now BigY ignorance is your friend. Which reminds me, has anyone figured out how many new trees would take care of the CO2 fear-mongering?
Perhaps it’s a case of having no idea what is involved in terms of actual numbers? That would be my guess.
May 11th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
kim Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I do not know for sure what to expect from the sun, and neither does any living soul.
kim Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Another lovely thing; people can feel it in their bones that the globe is cooling rather than warming.
May 11th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
It looks like the trolls are coming out full force.
May 11th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
dim, 14. What people felt in their bones through this last tough winter may help explain the lack of effect of Gore’s latest $300,000,000 ad campaign. Wouldn’t your bones and gut like to know where he came up with that kind of money? He claims it is from ‘internet and anonymous’ donors. Yeah, sure, people ashamed to admit their greedy motives.
==========================================
May 11th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Global warming deniers neither raise money nor have greedy motives!
It’s true, because someone who is almost certainly a paid shill told me.
May 11th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
So, it’s not about hats for baseball players and what you do with bubblegum cards?
May 11th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
dim, 17. I should say strawman dim with your false contradiction. So, is the cooling from the sun? Or is it the Pacific Decadal Oscillation newly in its cooling phase. If you think its the sun, clue us in; there’s a Nobel Prize for the one who elucidates the mechanism by which the sun directs the climate.
shooter, 242. An excellent point. Not only is this tax regressive, but it is expensive, dangerous, and probably completely unnecessary. Why do the Democrats hate poor people?
=============================================
May 11th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
kim Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I do not know if the long term warming trend has ceased or not.
kim Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Another lovely thing; people can feel it in their bones that the globe is cooling rather than warming.
kim Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
joe can’t find a lie or a shill anywhere about me.
May 11th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
dim, 20. The skeptical movement is almost completely unpaid, whereas the alarmist contingent is richly rewarded. I’ve read of a $20 million/$50 billion ratio in favor of the alarmists. Talking about paid shills is totally out-of-date.
===============================================
May 11th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Hey kim,
Lemme guess: those old quotes that directly contract your claims on this tread TOTALLY prove your point about not being a liar or a shill.
Amirite?
May 11th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
dim, 23. You are erecting another strawman, by quoting out of context. Shame, shame. The long term trend I was talking about in the quote you truncate is the one extending back to the end of the Little Ice Age, from long before CO2 started rising. Degenerate rhetoric is ultimately unpersuasive, despite what you may think you gain from lying.
=======================================
May 11th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
kim Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
dim, 20. The skeptical movement is almost completely unpaid
Oh, really?
May 11th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
joe, 25. You should be able to understand the illegitimacy of those truncated quotes juxtaposed to create a lie. You were on that thread. It’s the Waxman/Markey thread, and I encourage all readers to peruse it. See for yourself who’s the sophist here.
========================================
May 11th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
dim, 27. Yeah, really. Compare the money. I dare you.
==================================
May 11th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
That’s not any different than if people chose randomly–suggesting that hardly anyone knows what cap and trade is. Amazing result. Hard to believe democracy has survived this long.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
kim Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I do not know if the long term warming trend has ceased or not.
kim Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Another lovely thing; people can feel it in their bones that the globe is cooling rather than warming.
The thing speaks for itself.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Kim,
Your own sources firmly state that the PDO does not cause temperature change. The PDO lags temperature change. I pointed this out to you before, and you didn’t seem to understand.
Climate change affects the PDO; PDO does not affect climate change.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Realist, 30. Part of the reason for that ignorance is that even the alarmists dare not actively advertise Cap and Trade. Think of all the ads you’ve seen for Green Jobs compared to what you’ve seen for what is only a lightly disguised tax. There is a good reason for the ignorance. The alarmists are trying to sneak it by the polity.
=============================================
May 11th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Is that the one where you claimed the temperature graph didn’t match the atmospheric carbon graph, I posted link to both so people could compare them, and you responded by accusing me of a post hoc fallacy?
Project much?
May 11th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
dim, 31. See 26. You are lying about me here. We are cooling now, from the cooling effects of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and it is clear that the long term warming trend is not from the effect of the PDO. In fact, we don’t know the cause of the long term warming trend, and I still don’t know if it has ceased. No contradiction there, despite your best sophistical efforts. So keep lying; sooner or later your pants will catch on fire, and then you’ll feel global warming in your bones.
================================================
May 11th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Why are you arguing with that dipshit? It doesn’t know what it is looking at, and can’t be made to understand either.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Yes, Kim, that’s my contempt for the hoi polloi aka fucking morons.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Njorl, 32. Temperature and the PDO is a very complex chicken and egg thing. So if you think the present cooling is not from the interrelationship of the global temperature with the PDO, then what is it from. Watts Up With That has an elegant discussion recently of the relationship.
joe, 34. Yep, you claim that the correlation of temperature rise and CO2 rise is a causal one and I claim you’ve succumbed to the Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. The only time with even a good correlation between CO2 rise and temperature rise is the last quarter of the last century, and mistaken interpretation of that correlation has caused all the recent foolishness, and the failing paradigm that CO2=AGW.
======================================
May 11th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Why are you arguing with that dipshit?
There is a slight chance someone might not realize kim is a lying shill right away, so demonstrating the fact that she doesn’t even try to keep her story straight when arguing is like putting a road flare in front of a fallen tree.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Ed, 36&37 Watch the thermometers.
=======================
May 11th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
dim, 39 And I claim you are a lying sophist using truncated quotes and inappropriate juxtaposition to misrepresent my views. I encourage everyone to review the Waxman/Markey thread to see the context.
=======================================
May 11th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
kim, I’ve always wondered, why are you deniers so obsessed with Al Gore? Surely your real problem should be with the hundreds of climate scientists who make up the scientific consensus on climate change without which Gore would lose his credibility. Are they all part of the conspiracy (getting kickbacks from Gore?) or are they just stupider than you?
May 11th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
The comment to which this refers:
Internet trolls are funny. Does she imagine people can’t click a link and see the atmospheric carbon levels rising in the mid-1800s? Does she think people can’t look at those two curves and see that the look the same throughout the entire period?
May 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Yes, but who cares? After you’ve been repeatedly shown to be lying, do you imagine that making vague references another thread – one that your opponents seem eager to quote from, and you don’t – while saying I’m lying is going to convince anyone?
Stop lying, kim. Then you won’t have to worry about your lies coming back to haunt you.
Because they will.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Realist, 42. Not a bad question. Gore has massively exaggerated the tiny effect of CO2 and scared old people and children in the process of enriching himself. That irritates many of us.
In fact, it is only a small coterie of around 50 scientists who wrote major parts of the IPCC reports and fewer than a dozen who wrote the Summary for Policymakers. I’ve little doubt that the majority of those scientists are honest. What troubles me is that in the face of rising evidence that the paradigm that CO2=AGW, and the failure of the models, that more of them haven’t re-examined their hypotheses. It would be the scientific thing to do.
==================================
May 11th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
dim, 44. You can’t demonstrate a lie. That’s a bluff. And anyone who looks at the whole quote will see that you’ve truncated it illegitimately.
============================================
May 11th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
You don’t know what that term means, do you?
The greenhouse effect refers to the change in the steady state temperature of a planet or moon by the presence of an atmosphere containing gas that absorbs and emits infrared radiation.[1] Greenhouse gases, which include water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane, warm the atmosphere by efficiently absorbing thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. As a result of its warmth, the atmosphere also radiates thermal infrared in all directions, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system.[2][3][4][5] This mechanism is fundamentally different from the mechanism of an actual greenhouse, which instead isolates air inside the structure so that the heat is not lost by convection and conduction, as discussed below. The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in the year 1858 and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in his 1896 paper.[6]
May 11th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
joe, 43. How about you go back further in time, when CO2 was flat and temperature varied all over the map? You didn’t want to answer that question last thread. Like I say, Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. You know your curves don’t demonstrate causation. And you expect the public to look at those curves and see causation. Another sophist, you, and an ignorant one, too. Where are Steve and Jeffrey, who at least know a little whereof they speak.
=======================================
May 11th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
kim Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
dim, 44. You can’t demonstrate a lie.
kim Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
dim, 20. The skeptical movement is almost completely unpaid.
Alrighty then.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
It was cooler — in North America. Every place else was hotter.
Nate Silver has a great piece on climate change (it’s happening, the world is getting hotter on average), the relationship to personal temperature experience (what people feel in their “bones”) and shifts in opinion, complete with cool graphics for teh stoopid denier / shills who apparently don’t “get” science, here:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/forecast-on-climate-change-cooler.html
May 11th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
How about we only go back in time to the point where you accused me of making a post-hoc argument, when in fact, you raised the issue of the correlation between temperatures and carbon?
Another lie.
Yet another lie.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
joe, 47 Now your sophistical technique is to claim that I know less than you know I know. In the last thread, I agreed that CO2 has a real Greenhouse Gas effect, but that I believe it is very small, in line with Arrhenius’s corrected version. The error the modelers, and Hansen and the IPCC make is to assume a large positive water vapor feedback to that small initial forcing. That is why their models are failing.
But we’ve been over all this before. So why are you pretending we haven’t spoken before. Do you not want people to look at that old thread. Well, truly, I don’t blame you for that.
==========================================
May 11th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Why, exactly, should anyone believe any of your claims at this point, Kim?
BTW, folks, here is the thread from which I took kim’s earlier lies.
Peruse it all you want. I haven’t the slightest concern about anything that appears therein harming my reputation for truthfulness.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
I’m beginning to think the new principal cause of climate change is hot air from global-warming deniers
May 11th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
kim,
Have you noticed that whenever I pwn you with irrefutable evidence, you stop making arguments about climate, and instead write about “sophistical arguments” and “logical fallacies” while misattributing statements to me?
Because I sure have; and now everyone else does, too.
Hilarious.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Yes kim, here is the introduction to that discussion.
You do not understand your own argument.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Note the time stamps.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
kim Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
So, is the cooling from the sun? Or is it the Pacific Decadal Oscillation newly in its cooling phase.
kim Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Njorl, 32. Temperature and the PDO is a very complex chicken and egg thing.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Hey, I can troll too.
The so called ‘continental drift’ theory has run aground on the bedrock of American common sense. We can feel in our bones that continents don’t move, it’s just the seismic reinforcement lobby (aka Big Building) out for another handout. Take your anti-brick bias elsewhere.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Phoenix is a popular and excellent place to live!
Europeans are doody-heads! All of the smart ones emigrated to Americas!
May 11th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
dim, 49 I urged you earlier to compare the funding of the alarmists and the skeptics. It is 2500/1. Alrighty, then; that shows the skeptics are almost completely unpaid.
joe, 51. There is correlation in the last quarter of the last century. There is no causal connection. No lie.
vern, 50. All the temperature series show cooling since 2005. The most important one is the Argos oceanic buoy series, because of the huge heat content of the oceans compared to the atmosphere.
joe, 53. Yes, please read the whole thread if you’ve time.
rmwarnick, 54. The new deniers are those denying global cooling.
joe, 55. So you truncate another quote to make your lying point? Hilarious.
Njorl, 56. Well, yes, I do understand my argument. The root cause of both lower temperatures and PDO in its cooling phase is an ocean depleted of heat. Both of the other manifestations derive from that.
joe, 57. Click his link. You could learn a lot.
joe, 58. Again, no contradiction. You don’t understand this stuff well enough to realize that.
MobiusKlein, 59. Energy Secretary Chu was plain wrong when he stated that tectonic movements were “certainly” the reason North Slope oil got where it was. Barton pwn3d him, not vice versa. You could look it up.
========================================
May 11th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Back, somewhat on topic. Cap and Trade is in trouble this year because too many industrial state Democrats see their own oxen being gored. The Republicans are united behind a much more sensible concept of ‘All of the Above’, meaning encourage energy independence by drilling, adding nuclear plants, and exploring alternative energy. The Republicans, unfortunately, still believe in the need for carbon capture, which won’t work anyway.
The other reason the bill is in trouble is from the ‘feeling in their bones’ by the people that the globe is cooling, that Gore oversold his hoax, and the simple desire not to raise the price of energy in a recession.
=============================================
May 11th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I think this indicates that the “Cap and trade” term is bad. We should call it something that sounds like it has to do with the environment. There’s no reason to obfuscate here with a name most people wouldn’t recognize. Smacks of Bush’s “Clean Air Act”– you know, something that’s meant to fool us. If we’re not ashamed of what it really means, why not call it what it really means?
May 11th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Having worked in phone research, I have to say that the respondents aren’t entirely at fault for expressing opinions on things about which they know nothing. Those conducting the surveys are instructed to “probe” on “Don’t Knows” by saying things like, “From what you do know about it, what’s your opinion on cap-and-trade?” or “To the best of your knowledge, would say you strongly agree, agree…or strongly disagree that cap-and-trade is the best way to combat global warming?” Even when respondents keep saying that they don’t know, it’s considered a bad survey, and the results are discarded.
May 11th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
petronia, 63. You’ve got it, right there. I’ve little doubt that this monster will be back with a new name. However, a pose by any other name will smell as bad. Encumbering carbon is regressive, it is expensive, it is dangerous, and it is unnecessary. You can put mascara on porkulus, but it will still hurt poor people out of proportion to those better off, it will still raise the price of energy in a recession unnecessarily, and it will be dangerous to the livelihood of those living on the margin. If CO2 is only a minor determinant of climate, as will become progressively more obvious as we cool, why do such a terrible thing as Cap and Trade?
Obama was actually being fairly frank earlier when he suggested that the projected revenue could help pay for nationalizing health care. Notice you haven’t heard that sort of stuff slip out of his mouth recently as the immensity of the taxation sinks in to the polity.
=====================================
May 11th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Mark R, 64. You are describing one of the techniques of push polling, which is more useful for swaying public opinion than for measuring it.
==========================================
May 11th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
@ Kim, 66
Geez, Kim. I guess not knowing what you’re talking about but talking anyway extends to topics other than climate change for you.
This isn’t push polling that I’m describing. It’s not about getting “the right answer.” It’s about getting AN answer.
May 11th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
PS: Trolls care more about attention than correctness.
Anybody who thinks “Barton pwn3d him,” is kinda deranged, or blissfully fact free.
May 11th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
It’s hot today, therefore global warming is real.
May 11th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Mark R, 69. Heh, push polling isn’t about getting the ‘right answer’ either.
MobiusKlein, 68. As I so mercifully told you, you could look it up. I once saw a thread go over a hundred comments, all trashing Barton, before anyone(me) asked what a geologist would say. Even when I googled the answer and presented it, they still didn’t believe it. North Slope oil formed very near where it is now, under much warmer conditions. Tectonic action helped cover it. You could look it up. There is a nice discussion a week or so ago on climateaudit.org
==============================================
May 11th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
kim,
Gore has massively exaggerated the tiny effect of CO2
Really? Because I can find all over the scientific literature predictions just as dire as anything Gore has ever said. Have you an example of something he’s said that most climate scientists disagree with?
I’ve little doubt that the majority of those scientists are honest. What troubles me is that in the face of rising evidence that the paradigm that CO2=AGW, and the failure of the models, that more of them haven’t re-examined their hypotheses. It would be the scientific thing to do.
So, why aren’t they doing the scientific thing? Is it just because they are really poor scientists?
May 11th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Realist, 71. A British judge won’t allow ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ to be shown to British schoolchildren without a disclaimer detailing the errors. Gore is not allowed to promote his money making schemes in Britain because doing so would be ‘peddling a false prospectus’. He massively exaggerates the climate effects. You could look it up.
As I said, I don’t know why more climate scientists haven’t re-examined their assumptions. A few have, and become skeptics. Some of it has to do with funding, and with the inbred culture among the alarmist climate scientists, but I think a lot of it can be explained by a book written a century and a half ago ‘Popular Delusions, and the Madness of Crowds’. I’m happy to say that the trend among scientists is gradually toward skepticism.
==========================================
May 11th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Realist,71. OK, you asked for one specific example. The degree of rise of the oceans. That he is outrageously wrong about, and most scientists don’t believe that.
=================================================
May 11th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
“The degree of rise of the oceans” is not specific.
May 11th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
By the way, I know this is somewhat subjective, but I’m in a related field and the trend definitely isn’t towards skepticism. The trend is towards increased alarm due to emissions exceeding IPCC worst case scenario. Look, if you think pretty much all the scientists are wrong say so. But your battle is against them, not with them against Al Gore.
May 11th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
@ Kim, 70
You really think I meant “the right answer” unironically? You are beyond hope, I think.
May 11th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Realist, 74&75 It’s specific, if imprecise. What’s alarming the climate scientists is that temperature is dropping, despite their predictions. Don’t you wonder why temperature falls unexpectedly, while CO2 emissions exceed ‘worse case scenario’?
Mark R, 76. OK, maybe you know more about polling than I do.
==============================================
May 11th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Realist, 75. Yes, the trends are subjective, but there are more scientists who used to believe the CO2=AGW paradigm who have changed their minds and become skeptical, than skeptics who’ve become alarmists. Look, the temperature trend alone is changing minds. The globe wasn’t supposed to cool. If nothing else, the cooling is causing some to lower their estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2. It only makes sense.
==============================
May 11th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Kim, why are you arguing semantics? If Gore is really massively exaggerating beyond what the scientists are saying, it should be easy to find a specific and precise statement he claims that climate scientists aren’t saying. So tell me one.
May 11th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Realist, 79. Well, I’m arguing in this manner because I sense a trap. Once I find you a specific and precise statement, I’ve little doubt that you can find a scientist who’ll back you up. So, to speak more generally, he predicts a magnitude of sea level rise, and sooner, than most scientists would agree with. Another is his business about the severity of storms. Do you know that the Accumulated Cyclone Energy, the total hurricane and cyclone energy in the world, is at a thirty year low? Do you know he blamed climate change for the Red River Valley flood? What a joke.
So, in general, Gore argues for climate catastrophes much worse than the average alarmist scientist would subscribe to.
===============================================
May 11th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
@ Kim 77
Since I’m a dope and get lured into arguments like this, I’ll keep trying to make you understand a very simple thing.
Push polling is a technique wherein the questions are formulated with a desired outcome in mind. A push poll is designed to give the appearance of public opinion being for or against something that it isn’t actually for or against. It’s used either to manipulate opinion on an issue or to gauge the susceptibility of opinion to framing.
Regular ol’ scientifically-rigorous opinion polling, in contrast, wants actual answers to questions that are carefully worded so as to not be leading. As someone who has done the job for two different reputable opinion firms, I’m here to tell you that there is ALWAYS an effort made to get respondents to offer SOME opinion. The “Don’t Know” and “Refused” options are at the bottom and usually have a note next to them saying to probe or clarify before using.
May 11th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Mark R, 81, Yup, it’s as I suspected, you do know more about polling than I do. Another function of push polling, and the function I was getting at, is to actually manipulate public opinion. That little trick may go under another name, though. In this matter, I deny expertise.
======================================
May 11th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Mark R, 81. Oh, I see you did mention the manipulation of public opinion. That was my whole point, and why objected when you talked about getting the ‘right answer’. It also sounds like your original example, which I called push polling, was to manipulate public opinion by suggesting that cap and trade would help solve the problem of global warming. Do you see on what tiny grounds giant misunderstanding stand?
=====================================
May 11th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
kim, I’m not interested in unfalsifiable general statements. If you’re worried about me picking scientific sources from outside the mainstream, I won’t do that. And if I do you can call me out on it.
But whatever. If you’re not willing to be specific about that, be specific about all these scientists converting from CO2 alarmism to skepticism based on recent cooling. Who are these people and how many are they?
May 11th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Realist, 84. Well, sure, Realist, I’m gunshy from all the dishonest rhetoric I’ve been subject to on alarmist blogs. But my general statement is not unfalsifiable, it’s just a little more difficult to falsify than if I gave you a precise statement. Why don’t you try to validate the corollary, that most scientists agree with Al Gore’s estimation of sea level rise?
Marc Morano has an excellent list of people who’ve changed their mind. It is not a perfect list, nor is the Oregon Petition, but there is a lot of testimony to changing minds in those two lists. And please, spare me the standard cherry-picked criticism of those two lists. Read the words of the new skeptics in Morano’s list, in particular.
=============================================
May 11th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
kim, I asked for scientists who have been converted by the recent cooling, a group which you said existed in a recent post. I don’t care about Morano’s list; it includes people who have been deniers for a long time.
I see no reason why its so difficult to pin you down on a specific claim made by Gore that scientists disagree with. I’m not even asking for you to demonstrate that scientists disagree with it, just give me the statement. Al Gore has said a lot of things; I don’t even know which statement about sea level rise you’re referring to.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:48 am
well, i just browsed this set of comments.
i gotta hand it to kim, you really completely hijacked this thread…good job.
and for everyone else. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, ENGAGE WITH A TROLL LIKE KIM. It simply is a waste of time
May 12th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Kim:
Please go somewhere else. You ability to post 30 or 40 times in one thread may impress you, but it doesn’t impress me.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:39 am
“meaning encourage energy independence by drilling.”
Kim, I didn’t want to get in this game because you were arguing really weak arguments. But this is pure nonsense. We may be the largest consumer of oil, but our reserves aren’t worth shit. We can drill all we want and it still will only be a drop in the barrel compared to the real producers. And guess what? The number of rigs working in this country has dropped 30% compared to last year. Why would that happen? Maybe because we have crappy reserves and it’s more profitable to drill elsewhere? That’d be my guess. And it certainly isn’t because Bush opened up a bunch of new leases in America last year, is it? (Feel free to blame Bush for the drop in oil production) You can open up all the leases in America right now, and it won’t make a damn bit of difference. Nobody wants to drill it anyway. It’s just a bunch of patches that were left over because nobody wanted to drill them the first time. Except for the Atlantic reserves which can finally be accessed with modern technology. Guess what? There ain’t shit there. And don’t get me wrong, there really is oil there, but it would cost more in energy than that oil has in energy. Do you really want to burn a 120 barrels of oil to get 100 barrels of oil? No, and that’s why you don’t waste your time with the Atlantic coast deposits. The whole thing was just a ploy to put assets on the oil companies accounting. They can book some holdings that look valuable on paper, but will never actually produce oil. Until the laws of thermodynamics are repealed, it just ain’t possible. And the oil companies know it, I know it, and that’s why I invest in oil companies. In the end, I know that I can scam people like Kim. Hell, he’s so convinced, I don’t even have to bribe him anymore. Welcome to reality, Kim, the oil companies are barely in oil business anymore. They’re financial companies now, and they make money off you fantasies. And I get dividends, so fuck you very much.
May 12th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Realist, 86. I think you should start your voyage of discovery by finding out what Gore put in his film that the British Judge thought that British schoolchildren should be warned about. And I think you should search out the testimony of those on Morano’s list who’ve changed their mind. Bon Voyage.
xenomera, 87. Look again. I had a lot to say on topic, and only Mark R responded. petronia at 63 had a great comment.
Snowman, 88. I do not compel you to read what I write.
fostert, 89. This country is exceedingly rich in hydrocarbons. Read up.
================================================
May 12th, 2009 at 8:46 am
There isn’t actually any comment I wrote that even roughly approximates that sentiment.
On the other hand…
May 12th, 2009 at 9:58 am
There is a nice article in the Opinion Journal this AM covering a couple of the issues we anticipated yesterday, particularly the role of push polling in changing public opinion and in the need for a change in terminology from phrases like ‘Cap and Trade’, and ‘Global Warming’. It seems the administration is succumbing to the temptation to lie and manipulate rather than appeal to reason. In addition, an analyst with the Center for American Progress says that Cap and Trade will only get half the revenues previously predicted for it. Read it and weep.
============================================================
May 12th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Gotta hate people who like and manipulate rather than appeal to reason.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Ah, poor prevaricating joe. He knows I’ve modified that statement to suggest that this century MAY be much colder than the last. I know a lot, but even I’m not certain it will be ‘much colder’. I do believe the next two decades will be significantly colder than the last, because of the cooling phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. However, the next century will only be much colder than the last if the sun gets into the act. It does seem to be getting into the act, what with this present prolonged minimum between Solar Cycles 23 and 24, but even the finest solar physicists do not know with certainty what is happening with the sun. We all wait with bated breath.
joe, you could to with a little more curiosity. You’ve got to have that at a minimum before you can be susceptible to any appeals to reason. Your ham-handed efforts to attack my credibility wrecks yours more than they affect mine.
============================================================
May 12th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Aw, shoot, I meant joe could do with a little more curiosity. Also, for the curious, check out Livingston and Penn’s data showing that the sunspots will completely disappear by 2015. Whether or not that will effect climate is a journey for curious. No one knows the answer to that one, however, the last two times the sunspots went away, the globe cooled, during the Maunder and Dalton Minimums. Volcanoes, which clearly cool the globe, also happened during that time, so we don’t really know what is going to happen. We do live in interesting times. Interesting for the curious, that is.
=========================================================
===============================================================
May 12th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
[...] Ahem. [...]
May 12th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Alan, 96. Well, CO2 is not a threat to your existence or your environment, we are not at peak oil yet, by far, and if you don’t let the market guide our progress to alternative energy then you’ll end up with environmental and existential disasters like the biofuel mess. So there.
===============================================================
May 12th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
[...] Via Matthew Yglesias, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, only 24% of voters know that Cap and Trade has something to do with the environment, while 46% believe it’s about healthcare or regulating wall street. [...]
May 12th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Realist, 86. I think you should start your voyage of discovery by finding out what Gore put in his film that the British Judge thought that British schoolchildren should be warned about. And I think you should search out the testimony of those on Morano’s list who’ve changed their mind. Bon Voyage.
I looked at the list and I know pretty much all of them from a long time ago. As far as I can tell, the number of climate scientists who have converted to denialism due to recent cooling trends is zero. That you can’t tell me any new names despite claiming an increasing trend towards skepticism supports that hypothesis.
And you still evade listing a single thing Gore said that climate scientists disagree with. From this I must conclude that you agree with me that pretty much everything Gore said has support in the scientific literature–which is, indeed, what many of the climate scientists I talk to tell me about Gore’s work. In that case it is rather dishonest to criticize Gore on the science when he’s just listening to the experts.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Well, Realist, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it think.
===========================================
May 12th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
It is pretty obvious that the points where the British judge found that Gore went beyond the truth are generally areas in which the majority of scientists do not agree with him. It is just as obvious from reading the testimonies on the Morano list that some of them have changed their mind. So, Realist, I recommend that you observe the thermometers, too.
===================================================
May 12th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
[...] Matt Yglesias has the data to prove [...]
May 12th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Say, Njorl, there is another good article about the PDO over at Watts Up With That. Fascinating stuff, that li’l ol’ oscillation.
===============================
May 12th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Yes. You should probably learn what it is if you intend to keep blathering about it. I’m surprised you don’t get emails from the authors you cite telling you to cease and desist.
May 12th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Njorl, 104. Sour grapes are unbecoming. The ocean is depleted of heat, the atmospheres are cooling, and even the White House is getting skeptical. Check out their memo to the EPA suggesting that their finding of public health endangerment from CO2 may be incorrect, and that regulating CO2 will be severely damaging to the economy.
=============================================
May 13th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Well, I guess calling the White House ’skeptical’ is a bit of a stretch. Technically, yes, OMB is a White House function, and yes, there was skepticism in their report to the EPA. But this administration has specifically denied explicit agreement with the skeptical portions of the report. Nonetheless, the criticisms within the report are now public record, and must be addressed, scientifically, legally and politically.
==========================================================
May 15th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
[...] (Above chart courtesy of Matt Yglesias’ Think Progress blog) [...]
May 18th, 2009 at 1:07 am
[...] like these put a whole new twist on Hayek’s knowledge problem (hat tip: Yglesias): Given a choice of three options, just 24 percent of voters can correctly identify the [...]